THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali's remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia's mufti.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards", while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.

"Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he said.

Ms Hage-Ali said she was "disgusted and offended" by Shiek Hilali's comments. "I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia's Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense."

Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.

Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.

He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame ... but a man should be able to control himself". He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself."

Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.

Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was "normalising immoral sexual behaviour" by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.

"It's basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food," he said.

"But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action."

Revelation of the mufti's comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. "Those who don't respect their women are not true Muslims."

"There's a small percentage found among all religions, but we don't recognise ours as Muslims."

Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali's remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.

"They are below and beyond any comment (and) do not deserve any consideration."

Counterterrorism BlogRadical Australian Cleric Al-Hilali's Sermon in the Context of a Growing Fringe of Home-Grown MilitantsBy Zachary Abuza

[Author?s note: I do not like to comment on issues/events outside of Southeast Asia, but I would like to post this brief piece on the comments of Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali of Australia, that are getting significant attention in the international media. They must be seen in the context of a growing threat of home grown Islamist militancy Down Under, that has not been addressed to the degree it should have been on the Counterterrorism Blog.]

This week a Ramadan sermon by the controversial Supreme Muslim Cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali aired in the national media has created a furor across Australia. The comments, in which the sheik blames women for rape, are only the latest in a string of incidences by radical Muslims who refuse to integrate and abide by Australia?s liberal-democratic and multi-ethnic core values. While the radicals comprise only a small number of Australia?s 300,000 Muslims (who come from some 20 countries), their vociferous and intolerant discourse is disturbing. It also adds increasing light to the problem of home-grown Islamist militancy in Australia.

Last year, the firebrand imam, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, originally from Algeria but who eventually became an Australian citizen, went on national television and stated unequivocally that he could not tolerate any religion but Islam: "According to my religion, here, I don't accept all other religion except the religion of Islam? I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam."

Benbrika, who described Osama bin Laden as ?great man,? also caused a stir by inciting Australian Muslims to go to Iraq and fight coalition ? including Australian ? troops; stating that it was a religious obligation for Muslims to do so.

Benbrika was arrested last November for being the ringleader of a terrorist plot. According to police officials from the State of Victoria, though the plot was in its "developmental stages,? Benbrika and his followers (two cells, one in Sydney, the other in Melbourne), were clearly inspired by the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London and were planning a major attack. In a telephone conversation intercepted by the police, Abdulla Merhi, said he "could wait months but not years" to carry out jihad. "You shouldn't kill just one, two or three," Mr Benbrika allegedly responded. "Do a big thing." "Like Madrid?" Mr Merhi allegedly inquired, to which Mr Benbrika was said to have replied: "That's it." He continued, "If you kill, we kill here 1000, because if you get large numbers here, the government will listen." Members of the Melbourne cell were allegedly filming the Australian Stock Exchange and Flinders Street Station, the main commuter rail terminus in Melbourne.

The group was self-financed. Members of the Melbourne cell each donated $100 a month while several others were involved petty crime, credit-card fraud and selling stolen mobile phones to finance the plot. The Sydney cell members had amassed a number of firearms and a small cache of chemicals needed to produce TATP, the explosive used in the London bombings, lab equipment, over 150 detonators, over 130 digital timers, and al-Qaeda literature and bomb-making manuals. Cell members attended simple training sessions in remote areas in 2005, and allegedly Benbrika was given a demonstration of the explosives. Two of the 17 people arrested in November 2005 and March 2006 had received explosives training in Afghanistan. Currently there are 13 people standing trial in this case.

While Australia has done a superb job at assisting the governments of Southeast Asia investigate and break up Jemaah Islamiyah, Australian officials are now bracing for a rise in home grown militancy. Australian security officials from both Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have recently commented that there are roughly 12 terrorist cells with some 60 members that are being investigated. The threat of home-grown militancy has never been greater in Australia.

"But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail.?"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime ? kidnap and violation of honour ? I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it."

"If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.?"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

Al-Hilali has been in the news before. He was nearly deported several times before gaining citizenship owing to his radical preaching and tirades. He called the 9/11 attacks "God's work against oppressors" and continues to astound people with his virulent anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. These statements got him expelled from the Prime Minister's Muslim Advisory Board.

Another radical cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Omran, a spiritual leader of Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jama?ah, a Salafi organization, has led the media campaign denying Muslim links to either the London or Madrid bombings, as well as to the 9/11 attacks. "I don?t believe that even 11 September? I don?t believe that it was done by any Muslim at all? I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden," he said on national TV. Instead, he explained, they were "inside job" of the United States. Omran has encouraged followers to wage jihad against the west, glorified suicide bombers, and encouraged Madrid and London-style attacks in Australia.

Public pressure, in particular from Australia's moderate Muslim community (I.E. The Islamic Council of New South Wales called his comments ?un-Islamic, un-Australian and unacceptable?), forced al-Halali to apologize for his remarks, and he has agreed to a 2-3 month suspension from preaching though the Lakemba Mosque refused to dismiss him. Yet, he refused to resign until ?After we clean the world of the White House first.?

Australia, which has troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose government is closely allied with the Bush Administration, will continue to be vilified by Islamic militants, named in Al Qaeda and JI statements, will also see a rise in home grown militants, inspired by radical clerics such as Benbrika, al-Hilali, and Omran.

ANDREW Bolt writes: It's the code of the tribe: the worst of us is better than the best of you. We have urgent work to do if we want to save ourselves.

Excuses over. The disgraced mufti of Australia set Muslims a test last month and they failed. That test couldn't have been easier: make Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly pay for preaching that unveiled women invited rape.

Prove that Muslims can't be led by a man who says raped women must be "jailed for life". Prove we have nothing to fear from your faith.

Simple? Yet yesterday 34 Muslim groups signed a petition backing this bigot, while others plan a big rally for Sydney tomorrow, denouncing not Hilaly but the non-Muslims who criticise him.

The results are in: Islam here -- as represented by many of its leaders -- is now a threat.

I know saying such things is hard on the many moderate Muslims I keep insisting are out there. I am sorry for that, but where in God's name are those people? How much longer must we wait for them to speak?

For more than 20 years they said nothing as their most prominent imam, in their biggest mosque, damned Jews as perverts, called suicide bombers heroes, praised terror groups, vilified non-Muslims and hailed the September 11 terror attacks on the United States as "God's work against oppressors".

They said nothing as he gave the run of his mosque to a pro-bin Laden youth group and hired one of its translators as his spokesman.

For years they let this man, their mufti, represent Islam in this country, whose language he never really bothered to learn in nearly 30 years of living here.

But I never lost hope, and so for a few days last week thought . . . at last!

At last we heard Hilaly being damned by Muslims, too -- by women's groups, a Melbourne University academic and even the Islamic Council of Victoria, which had foolishly helped to make this Egyptian the mufti so no government would dare deport him. At last Muslims were disowning this man. He was disinvited from a Brisbane festival. There was talk of stripping him of his title.

The Lebanese Muslim Association, which runs the Lakemba mosque, even debated sacking him as imam, before banning him from preaching for three months.

No, this wasn't much, but many in the media grabbed it hungrily. We badly want to find Muslims who'll renounce the values of the hate-preachers, to show that it's not us against Islam.

Mind you, we shouldn't have had to be so pathetically grateful. What sane person could want a woman jailed for being raped?

But we should have known already this was a bigger problem than just Hilaly.

Last year Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed also gave a speech in Sydney, which said raped women had themselves to blame.

And which of the 500 men who heard Hilaly say the same at his sermon complained? Only when it was reported in the English-speaking press did some concede Hilaly had gone too far.

Yet even then supporters sent him vanloads of flowers, and when he returned to his mosque last Friday he was greeted "like a rock star", said one paper, by an adoring crowd of 5000.

And that criticism of him? It faded away. Now the Lebanese Muslim Association isn't so ashamed of him, after all: "We did accept his apology and we want to move on."

The Muslim Women's Association, which first admitted to being "shocked" by Hilaly's sermon, now said he was "very good to all Muslim women". Said founding president Aziz El Saddik: "Those who say bad things about him, they have very bad manners." His sermon on rape was for Muslims only. Not our business.

But we can't afford to believe that any more. They weren't Muslim women, after all, who were raped by a Lebanese gang in Sydney, which called them "sluts" and "Aussie pigs".

It wasn't a Muslim teenager who was pack-raped in Sydney by Pakistani brothers, whose father told the court: "What do (the victims) expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."

When Hilaly preaches excuses for such rapes, that concerns us all. Very much.

But it is true that not all those defending Hilaly like what he said. The people behind tomorrow's rally say, rather, that our criticism of him has degenerated into just Muslim-bashing.

Yesterday's statement by 34 Muslim groups -- most representing Islamic colleges and students, or the Muslims of tomorrow -- says the same, even as it confirms something far more scary.

"We believe that the public scrutiny of this matter should have ended with the sheik's apology," it says.

"We believe that the Muslim community should be allowed to deal with the ramifications of the incident without interference from people who only wish to promote hostility and incite hatred towards our community. Finally, we consider this matter to be closed."

Closed? In fact, Hilaly has not retracted a word of what he said. If this matter is "closed" then he has won.

But what is most frightening is not that he's won, but how. Both this statement and the rally show he's won because even educated Muslims, born right here, think it's better to defend a Muslim bigot than to have him criticised by infidels.

I t's the code of the tribe: the worst of us is better than the best of you. It's a closed community speaking -- a paranoid one that sees itself at war even with people whose only worry is that their preacher excuses rapists.

And menace is in the air. What other congregation at prayer needs to be reminded -- as Hilaly reminded those at his mosque last week -- not to punch people on the way out? Which other rally for a religious leader needs to be warned -- as the NSW Police Minister warned this week -- that police would not tolerate any violence?

I'm not surprised one of Hilaly's former advisers, Jamal Rifi, warns that if he hangs on as Lakemba's imam he may trigger "racial tensions, much bigger than what we had over the Cronulla riots".

But what are we doing to help Muslims to break from him and leave this cultural ghetto, this encampment, before things get truly ugly?

Not enough. For a start, we make too many excuses for the Hilalys, as if they were mere children, or Australia the real villain.

Yesterday Suzanne Bassette, national secretary of the Australian Democrats, even said: "I'm willing to stand up with anybody else in this country who happens to agree with Sheik Hilaly's sentiments . . . Unfortunately, how a woman dresses does affect her level of likeliness to be chosen."

She said the "real lesson" from this fuss was this "latest opportunity to get angry". The problem wasn't the mufti who wants to jail raped women, but his critics.

Bassette wasn't alone. The Age ran a big cartoon likewise blaming sluttish white girls for putting themselves in danger, and federal Labor's Peter Garrett, the former singer, said Hilaly's comments were terrible, but "at the same time, the levels of violence against Australian women is something happening in the bars, in the clubs, in the bedrooms, in the boardrooms".

Again, we are the truly wicked. Leave Hilaly alone.

How can a culture so sick of itself resist the kind of challenge that Hilaly and his angry supporters represent? How can it inspire young Muslims to side not with him but with us?

I don't know, when we teach the young we are a country of child-stealing, land-raping, Muslim-murdering, Yank-licking, gas-belching vandals. Until that changes, expect the traffic to flow more into Hilaly's ghetto than out of it.

Just consider the radical mother of two of the Australian Muslims arrested in Yemen last week on terrorism charges, and accused of ties to al-Qaida -- a so-called former "hippy chick" from Mudgee, who found in Islam what she couldn't in the society that raised her.

As I said: Muslims have failed. But so have we all. We now have urgent work to do, if we want to save ourselves from far more strife than we dare yet imagine or say.

A Sydney mufti who compared unveiled women to "uncovered meat" has gained followers in New Zealand, despite an attempt by the country's official Muslim body to disown him.

A former president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Dr Abdul Hafeez Rasheed, says Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali may have used an "inappropriate" analogy, but his message that women should cover up was "quite legitimate".

Another Auckland man, 23-year-old website developer Eyad Arwani, wrote on a local Muslim discussion website: "Just as there is [sic] thieves among men, there are those who cannot control their sexual desires, and if a woman attracts attention of such men and is violated, then she can only blame herself."

Sheik Alhilali attended a conference at Auckland's Sheraton Hotel organised by the local Islamic federation and the Saudi-based Organisation of the Islamic Conference in June 2003 and claims to be the "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific".

In a sermon reported last week in Australia, he said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street or in the garden or in the park or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib [scarf or veil], no problem would have occurred."

But the current Islamic federation president, Javed Khan, issued a statement rejecting Sheik Alhilali's claim to be the "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific".

"We have no dealings with this mufti," he said. "I have been president for 3 years and I have never met him."

He said the title "mufti" was given to Islamic scholars with authority to settle issues of religious law but did not carry any administrative powers such as those of Christian bishops.

Egyptian-born Sheik Alhilali attended the Auckland conference in the same month that Mr Khan was elected the federation's president.

Mr Khan said yesterday: "I attended some of the sessions but I can't remember whether he spoke. It was before my term."

The imam of New Zealand's oldest mosque, in Ponsonby, Sheik Mohammed Abdul Rahman Ayrut, attended a dinner with Sheik Alhilali at the conference. He said that, if correctly reported, the mufti's latest sermon was "a mistake".

"You have to call people to be in good morality and to follow your religion, not to condemn them and say these ladies ... are like meat on the street," Sheik Ayrut said. "If he said that, that's wrong."

Fiji-born Dr Rasheed, now a lawyer in Mt Roskill, believed the criticism was part of an international campaign against Islam by "Zionist Christians".

He said the Koran was clear that women should cover themselves "from the wrist right down to the ankles and all over except the face - that is one interpretation. The other interpretation is that they should be completely covered."

Writing on the "Info for NZ Muslims website", Syrian-born Mr Arwani called on Muslims to support Sheik Alhilali.

"The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous. It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open," he said.

But a Hamilton Muslim woman who wears the hajib, Anjum Rahman, responded that "self-control is the basis of Islam".

"It is the meaning of submitting your will to Allah. It is one of the reasons we fast during Ramadan. It is how we strive for Jannah [Paradise] - by controlling our desires."

Boys expelled from Islamic school for urinating on Bible12:29 PM December 6

The headmaster of a Melbourne Islamic College has condemned the behaviour of two boys expelled for allegedly urinating on a Bible.

The incident is alleged to have happened on a school camp last week.

Teachers at the East Preston College have petitioned the principal telling of their shock and dismay.

Principal Shaheem Doutie says the behaviour of the boys was unacceptable.

"Principal, teachers and the school community hereby condemn in the strongest possible terms the alleged desecration of the Bible by two of our students at a school camp," he said.

Mr Doutie has offered an unconditional apology to everyone affected.

"I hereby apologise to all staff, including Muslim and non-Muslim teachers, or any other person that was offended by this horrible act as conducted by some ignorant and clearly ill-informed students," he said.

AN Iraqi Muslim man allegedly raped a Muslim woman as "punishment" for her reading the Bible.

Campbelltown District Court in Sydney's west yesterday heard Abdul Reda Al Shawany twice sexually assaulted the woman, a practising Muslim, and then said to her: "Let your Jesus help you."

Al Shawany, 52, has plead not guilty to two counts of having sexual intercourse without consent between September 1 and 27, 2002, at a unit in Warwick Farm.

At the first day of the week-long trial yesterday, Crown prosecutor Michael O'Brien outlined the case and told how the woman allegedly kept the clothes and underwear she was wearing on the day of the alleged rape in a plastic bag for about three years.

The woman initially reported the matter to police but did not want to take it further because she felt "ashamed", Mr O'Brien said. She later changed her mind and Al Shawany, of Hillsdale, was arrested in July 2005 and the woman provided police with the clothing.

The Crown alleges swab samples from the accused had the same DNA as the semen sample taken from the woman's clothing.

"The complainant was born a Muslim and raised a Muslim and was a Muslim all her life," Mr O'Brien said.

He said when the woman came to Australia from the Middle East she began listening to Christian teachers and reading the Bible.

He said the woman - who wears the Muslim hijab - had received threats from members of her faith for reading the Bible but had not converted to Christianity.

It is alleged she met Al Shawany, who she had first met overseas, at Warwick Farm railway station in September 2002 after he told her he had some mail for her from overseas.

Al Shawany allegedly then took her to a Warwick Farm unit and pushed her in the head as she entered.

"She was wearing a hijab. The accused grabbed the hijab, the veil, and pulled it tight across her mouth," Mr O'Brien told the court.

"She fell to the floor and she couldn't scream because she had a hijab tight across her mouth."

I've met enough whacko, violent, repressive and racist Christians (nicely dressed after church before goin' a'lynchin') and Jews ("hey - _we're_ God's chosen people, not the rest of you!") and remarkably sensible, moderate Muslims to know that the hypocrytes and 4th Commandment breakers are sprinkled among all sorts of religious, national, and geographic bounds.

There's a difference between a religion and those who pervert it.

I'm sure you know this, so sorry if I'm coming across like I'm preaching.

I think you will find that GM can speak for himself rather well, but as the forum host please allow me also to answer. A good place to start is with the Rules of the Road thread at the top of this forum.

"The rules of the road around here are pretty simple:

1) Good manners: we speak to each other as if we were face to face.

, , ,

3) WE SEEK TRUTH. Not to profit or be a prophet, but to seek the truth. If the facts prove us wrong, we change our minds.

4) Given the nature of WW3 and the generally low level of understanding of Islam in our culture, it is natural that there will be many pieces about Islam. Some of them will be negative. Some of them will be positive. ALL of them are to be in search of truth. If you disagree with something that someone else prints, the answer is to persuade with Reason and Reality."

Does this help?Marc

PS: Your posted comment about the Barbary Pirates indicates you well add to the mix around here. Welcome aboard!

I've met enough whacko, violent, repressive and racist Christians (nicely dressed after church before goin' a'lynchin') and Jews ("hey - _we're_ God's chosen people, not the rest of you!") and remarkably sensible, moderate Muslims to know that the hypocrytes and 4th Commandment breakers are sprinkled among all sorts of religious, national, and geographic bounds.

There's a difference between a religion and those who pervert it.

I'm sure you know this, so sorry if I'm coming across like I'm preaching.

Like I said, no offense meant. Maybe I misunderstand you.

-E

All humans, no matter their environment, culture, national origins or religion are capible of evil acts. That being said, not all political structures, cultures or religions are equally benevolent. Not every muslim is a jihadist or a supporter of the global jihad. Having said that, if you carefully examine the core theological elements of islam (Not only the qu'ran, but the ahadith, sunna and classical islamic teachings on the interpretation of the qu'ran, ahadith and sunna) I think you may well reach the conclusion that I have that there is a core element of islamic theology that mandates that muslims live under a islamic theocracy and spread the islamic theocracy with every means, including violence until all of mankind submits (Islam, as you may know means "submission").

Historically, islam spread from a small area of what is now Saudi Arabia at the time of muhammad's death, to the gates of Vienna, large parts of Africa, western China, down through SE asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Caucasus and so on. This, no matter how apologists may try to spin this, this most always came at swordpoint. Read about the islamic invasion of India for a (mostly unknown to westerners) story of incredible carnage and atrocity after atrocity.

Often I feel like it's 1938 and i'm trying to warn people of the looming threat and what i'm getting in response is "Not every German is a nazi." "I've met many Japanese and they are wonderful people."

Most Germans weren't nazis, and most Japanese are wonderful people but that wasn't very comforting to those that found themselves in railcars enroute to places like Buchenwald and Auschwitz or the citizens of Nanjing when the Imperial Japanese Army arrived.

You're dead on about some of this but I think you're blaming Islam for things that also have been done by Christians, Hindus, Jews, and others. Arabs, Turks, N. Africans, and especially Palestinians (for example) have a lot to say about violence done by the West in the name of Christianity or Judaism.

I married a Muslim woman (and the rest of her giant family, too ). They are wonderful people. Sometimes I tease them when they do something kind and generous (which is often) and tell them they're the best Christians I know.

They fled their country during a civil war against Islamists (violent, hypocrytical religious fundamentalists). My wife was a doctor and regularly put peoples' bodyparts back on them after bus bombings and village massacres, all the while risking kidnapping and reprisal because she she was a woman (and still is ) professional. My brother-in-law used to pass by stakes in the ground with decapitated heads on them. They used to draw rifle fire from way up in their apartment building if they poked their heads out on the balcony after curfew.

So, I'm completely with you regarding "wake up folks, something nasty is brewing" like in reference to Nazis and pre-WWII Japanese, but I don't get a sense of differentiation between Islam, Muslims, and terrorism.

My in-laws and many, many of their countrymen are Muslims and victims of Islamist terrorism. It freaks me out when public discourse in this country fails to differentiate. Believe me, there's a big, big difference.

I believe that recognizing this is important for three (or more) reasons: 1) if we fail to understand the problem clearly and our own parts in creating or perpetuating it, we're very unlikely to figure out a way to solve it.2) if we cannot differentiate between Muslim and Islamist, then good people like my in-laws will be smashed between the two sides in a very nasty fight.3) in this fight, thanks to telecommunication and especially the internet, each of us is a footsoldier.

It's not just gov'ts fighting wars now. A would-be hiraba (jihadi is the wrong word as it lends a sense of legitimacy to their perversion of their religion - hiraba means "bandit" and is a little more accurate) will be reading the news, surfing the 'net, and seeing how we in the USA behave and what we think of them.

So, we should mind what we're saying as each of us is a representative of our side and not give in to panic, fear, and hate, but instead analyze, understand, focus, and represent (like a good martial artist ).

I'm very new to this forum so perhaps I missed entirely that everyone already understands this, of course. If so, please forgive me if I sound pedantic. No offense meant. I hope I did not come across rudely.

You're dead on about some of this but I think you're blaming Islam for things that also have been done by Christians, Hindus, Jews, and others. Arabs, Turks, N. Africans, and especially Palestinians (for example) have a lot to say about violence done by the West in the name of Christianity or Judaism.

****Well, the so-called "Palestinians" aren't objects of sympathy in my book. It is my position that the totalitarian imperialism of islam from it's genesis is well documented and though other cultures and religions have their also well documented flaws, islam has well established it's self both in history and in current events as the source of oppression and violence.****

I married a Muslim woman (and the rest of her giant family, too ). They are wonderful people. Sometimes I tease them when they do something kind and generous (which is often) and tell them they're the best Christians I know.

They fled their country during a civil war against Islamists (violent, hypocrytical religious fundamentalists). My wife was a doctor and regularly put peoples' bodyparts back on them after bus bombings and village massacres, all the while risking kidnapping and reprisal because she she was a woman (and still is ) professional. My brother-in-law used to pass by stakes in the ground with decapitated heads on them. They used to draw rifle fire from way up in their apartment building if they poked their heads out on the balcony after curfew.

So, I'm completely with you regarding "wake up folks, something nasty is brewing" like in reference to Nazis and pre-WWII Japanese, but I don't get a sense of differentiation between Islam, Muslims, and terrorism.

My in-laws and many, many of their countrymen are Muslims and victims of Islamist terrorism. It freaks me out when public discourse in this country fails to differentiate. Believe me, there's a big, big difference.

****Even since the death of Muhammad, muslims have been killing muslims over differences in theology. That has never stopped. The jihadis/hiraba as, you call them come from a lineage that is rooted in the conduct of muhammad himself.****

I believe that recognizing this is important for three (or more) reasons: 1) if we fail to understand the problem clearly and our own parts in creating or perpetuating it, we're very unlikely to figure out a way to solve it.2) if we cannot differentiate between Muslim and Islamist, then good people like my in-laws will be smashed between the two sides in a very nasty fight.3) in this fight, thanks to telecommunication and especially the internet, each of us is a footsoldier.

****I agree with every one of those points.****

It's not just gov'ts fighting wars now. A would-be hiraba (jihadi is the wrong word as it lends a sense of legitimacy to their perversion of their religion - hiraba means "bandit" and is a little more accurate) will be reading the news, surfing the 'net, and seeing how we in the USA behave and what we think of them.

So, we should mind what we're saying as each of us is a representative of our side and not give in to panic, fear, and hate, but instead analyze, understand, focus, and represent (like a good martial artist ).

I'm very new to this forum so perhaps I missed entirely that everyone already understands this, of course. If so, please forgive me if I sound pedantic. No offense meant. I hope I did not come across rudely.

We're going on a bit of a tangent to the subject of this thread here, but that's OK.

"So, I'm completely with you regarding "wake up folks, something nasty is brewing" like in reference to Nazis and pre-WWII Japanese, but I don't get a sense of differentiation between Islam, Muslims, and terrorism. My in-laws and many, many of their countrymen are Muslims and victims of Islamist terrorism. It freaks me out when public discourse in this country fails to differentiate. Believe me, there's a big, big difference."

Here you bring up a key point I think. I readily grant that the preponderance of posts on the various variations of this subject on this forum tend to be strongly leery of Islam precisely because something nasty is brewing, but I do hope you will have time to invest in reading back in the various threads. If you do so I think you will also find some posting of quite favorable things as well.

As it says on the Rules of the Road WE SEEK TRUTH. It sounds like you belong here as part of this search. The conversation may be vigorous, because Truth matters and its discernment in these troubled times can be as elusive as it is important.

So in closing I draw your attention to certain questions and doubts I have to help you communicate more effectively with me.

a) I sense a "good cop bad cop" routines between "good" and "bad" muslims-- and like good cop/bad cop, ultimately that they are two faces of the same coin.b) I sense that "good muslims" have a very strong aversion to standing with "good infidels" against "bad muslims".c) This is shown by the tremendous scarcity of translators and interpretors coming forward from the millions of Arab, Persian and Pakistani immigrants and their children in America.d) To be Muslim, my understanding is that one must seek Sharia. Sharia is not only a religious idea, it seeks to be the law-- a political idea. And the political idea of Sharia is contrary to Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State-- all core American inalienable rights derived from our Creator. In other words, I do not seeing a way around raising the question that in America Sharia, hence Islam, is per se seditious.

I have more to say, but the wife beckons me to watch "Dancing with the Stars" with her. Methinks these folks would all get fatwa-ed if their dances were to come to the attention of a goodly number of Muslim leaders.

As it says on the Rules of the Road WE SEEK TRUTH. It sounds like you belong here as part of this search. The conversation may be vigorous, because Truth matters and its discernment in these troubled times can be as elusive as it is important.

a) I sense a "good cop bad cop" routines between "good" and "bad" muslims-- and like good cop/bad cop, ultimately that they are two faces of the same coin.

Most, if not all Muslims I've met (grew up with some Iranians, married N. African, work with some Pakistanis and Palistinians) are just people trying to get by and they enjoy living in the USA. Some have problems with our post-cold war foreign policy but heck, so do most college students and many intellectuals. In this climate, they seem to avoid talking about politics but readily invest in getting families together for some bonding. Very, very good cooking in these circles, by the way, which does not help me stay skinny.

They hate the bad ones as much or more than we do, having personally experienced them.

Think of the bad ones as the Muslim world's KKK. The terrorists are as genuinely Muslim as the KKK is Christian.

b) I sense that "good muslims" have a very strong aversion to standing with "good infidels" against "bad muslims".

They're often trapped between a rock and a hard place. Nobody idealizes the USA like many did after WWII. Those days are over yet we don't realize it. We're not so cool anymore - kinda like the French.

We're not horrible, but we are a scary superpower who is not very worldly and has no problem attack countries who have not attacked us. That's pretty clear around the planet and scares the daylights out of people. We are also seen as an oil-greedy nation who will do anything we want to create, corrupt, and suck dry whole countries for their oil.

True or not, and I don't think we're as bad as we're seen these days, this makes us look like not such a good friend to ally with. So in the interest of self-preservation, many Muslims are staying out of it if they can and not standing with us as we don't offer anything credible and we don't look like we're going to succeed.

d) To be Muslim, my understanding is that one must seek Sharia. Sharia is not only a religious idea, it seeks to be the law-- a political idea. And the political idea of Sharia is contrary to Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State-- all core American inalienable rights derived from our Creator. In other words, I do not seeing a way around raising the question that in America Sharia, hence Islam, is per se seditious.

Nah, this isn't correct, though it's a good point.

To be Muslim you have to do five things and THAT'S IT.1) Declare there's no god but God and that Mohammed is his prophet.2) Fast for Ramadan.3) Give money to the poor.4) Make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in your life if and only if you can afford it.5) Pray 5 times per day.

The desire to have religious law is a cultural one. But think of it like this - it's more natural to have religious laws than specifically non-religious laws. If morality comes from God (in theory) and God decides what's good or bad (murder, adultry, theft, paying taxes, etc.) then it follows that the details would be "clarified" (or interpreted) by God's ministers (priests) who would, logically, claim that their legitimacy comes from God himself, right?

So a separation between church and state (which I wholeheartedly believe in) is a big step, one that the West only learned after centuries of corruption.

What are our laws based upon? "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." It works for us because it makes sense to us, but we're the exception, not the rule in the grand scheme of history.

So, imagine that the US were split up by, say, China or India or pre-1918 Turkey (pick a once or future big power), our resources sucked out of the country and the common US citizen wasn't making a dime on it, the state gov'ts were corrupt and controlled by foreign money, the KKK took an anti-foreigner as well as racist ideology and was the most organized group out there as hate makes sense under such circumstances, had characters like Pat Robinson and other extremists who were totally corrupting Christianity yet the church was the only hope and/or explanation of why God was treating us like we were being treated, Catholics and Protestants were fighting like they did during the Hugonaught time (sorry for the spelling), and somehow people whose lives and minds were warped by this life figured out a way to lash out.

That's as close of a parallel as I can can muster right before bed. I hope it makes a little sense.

Ah, GM, I just found your reply in there. Sorry - didn't notice it at first.

I disagree about the Palestinians. They were invaded by foreigners who set up their own country with their own laws, own language, and pushed out at gunpoint (or worse) the locals (many of whom are descended from the old old old pre-diaspora Jews) who had been living there for literally millenia. What's so hard to understand about that? These guys came from concentration camps and were equipped by the Brits and French who were trying to figure out something to do with them.

I feel sorry for the Jews who faced the Nazi holocaust, but they inflicted their own holocaust on the locals. The USA backs Israel to the tune of $5 BILLION per year. We sell them F15s, F16s, Apaches, spy gear, and other weapons that they use on the Palestinians they kicked out of their homes. They pay for this with money we give them.

While I don't like it or want it, I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back the only way they can. It's sick and wrong, but they were painted into a corner by Israel, the UK, France, and the US.

...

During most of the good years of Islam, they were waaaay more generous and civil to Christians and Jews than the other way around. People of the Book had strong civil rights and were integrated within society. This got tense during the crusades and inquisition, but Christendom never accorded them such rights.

Also, Christians have been killing each other since Rome split. Eastern vs. Catholic church (the Crusades were also against the Eastern church in Byzantium in effect, if not declared openly), Catholic vs. Protestant (remember the Three Musketeers? Remember who they were fighting? Protestants), Church of England vs. Catholic, and so on.

True, Islam split almost immediately, but the only difference is the timing, not the fratricide.

...

As for growing into this monster, and "it" (however that's defined) is certainly a monster, I'd say stems directly from the Sykes-Picot Treaty at the end of WWI and was fueled by decades of petrol-dollars. That explains the zit forming.

Now, said zit is erupting (sorry for the gross metaphor) and I think that comes from globalism, which is its own topic.

Iraq is a perfect example - pieces of three nations who were formerly only united under religion are squished into one secular state (like Neopolitan ice cream).

A weak king is installed by foreigners who is a total sell out to the west (UK in this example - you can see a movie with Alec Guinness as Feisal, I forget the name but it's explains a lot).

The west sucks out oil.

They rebel in the form of the Bath party who tries to re-unite Arabia (Syria was the first), having recent memories of 1200 years of unity), and they are tolerated so long as the oil flows and so long as they keep Iran, the other regional power who is exporting religious fundamentalism (and perversion of Islam), revolution and terrorism, at bay.

That phase ends, China grows, Venusuela is being extremely difficult, South America is nationalizing some of its energy, Globalism is on the rise and oil is looking like it will be sought after by China and India (and drying up, too), so the US invades to set up OUR pet companies.

Ah, GM, I just found your reply in there. Sorry - didn't notice it at first.

I disagree about the Palestinians. They were invaded by foreigners who set up their own country with their own laws, own language, and pushed out at gunpoint (or worse) the locals (many of whom are descended from the old old old pre-diaspora Jews) who had been living there for literally millenia. What's so hard to understand about that? These guys came from concentration camps and were equipped by the Brits and French who were trying to figure out something to do with them.

****Jews lived in Israel since it was Israel and Judea. Jews and Christians have been forced from their homelands all over the muslim world and yet do not sink to the level of conduct that the so-called "Palestinians" live and die by. There has never been a nation called "Palestine". There has been a region, or province of various empires but not a nation-state. The "palestinian" identity is a psy-op from the 60's, probably done by the KGB.****

I feel sorry for the Jews who faced the Nazi holocaust, but they inflicted their own holocaust on the locals.

****No, it's frankly a disgusting use of language to compare the holocaust to the self-inflicted misery and depravity of the "palestinians" and their self constructed culture of death.****

The USA backs Israel to the tune of $5 BILLION per year. We sell them F15s, F16s, Apaches, spy gear, and other weapons that they use on the Palestinians they kicked out of their homes. They pay for this with money we give them.

****We provide BILLIONS more to the arab nations surrounding Israel and military aid. However Israel has the intellectual ability to have a very compitent and creative domestic arms industry while the Arab nations sorrounding Israel produce new and exciting forms of terrorism. Second, most of the Arabs that ABANDONED their homes did so that they would return after the Jews had been driven into the sea. No such luck. A decent people would move forward, not teach their children it is glorious to be a suicide bomber.****

While I don't like it or want it, I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back the only way they can. It's sick and wrong, but they were painted into a corner by Israel, the UK, France, and the US.

****Utter garbage. Frankly they can only do what they do because Israel isn't willing to engage them in the total war they deserve.****...

During most of the good years of Islam, they were waaaay more generous and civil to Christians and Jews than the other way around. People of the Book had strong civil rights and were integrated within society. This got tense during the crusades and inquisition, but Christendom never accorded them such rights.

****Although Jews certainly were better treated under some Islamic rulers than they were in Medival europe, it isn't because the muslims were equitable, but that the medival christians were so much more oppressive and brutal. Your assertion that Dhimmis "had strong civil rights" is to assert that blacks in the south in the 1950's "had strong civil rights. That is, if you accept your status and as a lesser human being and "know your place" otherwise face officially mandated violence.****

Also, Christians have been killing each other since Rome split. Eastern vs. Catholic church (the Crusades were also against the Eastern church in Byzantium in effect, if not declared openly), Catholic vs. Protestant (remember the Three Musketeers? Remember who they were fighting? Protestants), Church of England vs. Catholic, and so on.

True, Islam split almost immediately, but the only difference is the timing, not the fratricide.

****The difference is Christianity evolved and reformed. Islam is as raw and savage as when Muhammad was robbing caravans and killing those who angered him with mocking poems.****

...

As for growing into this monster, and "it" (however that's defined) is certainly a monster, I'd say stems directly from the Sykes-Picot Treaty at the end of WWI and was fueled by decades of petrol-dollars. That explains the zit forming.

Now, said zit is erupting (sorry for the gross metaphor) and I think that comes from globalism, which is its own topic.

Iraq is a perfect example - pieces of three nations who were formerly only united under religion are squished into one secular state (like Neopolitan ice cream).

A weak king is installed by foreigners who is a total sell out to the west (UK in this example - you can see a movie with Alec Guinness as Feisal, I forget the name but it's explains a lot).

The west sucks out oil. ****And pumps in dollars.****

They rebel in the form of the Bath party who tries to re-unite Arabia (Syria was the first), having recent memories of 1200 years of unity), and they are tolerated so long as the oil flows and so long as they keep Iran, the other regional power who is exporting religious fundamentalism (and perversion of Islam), revolution and terrorism, at bay.

That phase ends, China grows, Venusuela is being extremely difficult, South America is nationalizing some of its energy, Globalism is on the rise and oil is looking like it will be sought after by China and India (and drying up, too), so the US invades to set up OUR pet companies.

****Iraq has given it's oil contracts to non-US companies. So much for the conspiracy theories.****

This pops that zit and now Pandora's Box has been opened.

****My view is the global interconnectivity has shown the "umma" how primitive they are compared to the west, which rather than question why islam retards development, project their rage outward the kafir, especially the Jews. Islam teaches islamic supremacy and they cannot question that, so every failure of islam is projected outwards as a conspiracy, especially a jewish conspiracy.****

The Islamic Shariah represents the will of Allah (swt) and His messenger Mohammad (pbuh). As Muslims, we must go about all matters according to the will of Allah (swt). In the holy Qur'an, Allah (swt) has revealed to humanity many verdicts and solutions to many of the problems faced by us. In order to be a true believer in Allah (swt), and in order to worship Allah (swt) only, we must follow the guidance of Allah (swt).

The holy Qur'an also instructs us to follow the messenger of Allah (swt), prophet Mohammad (pbuh). There are many ayat to this effect, which are discussed under a separate article. Therefore, the will of Allah (swt) is for us to worship Him by following His guidance as revealed in the holy Qur'an and in the Sunnah of prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

All Muslims should live their lives according to the Islamic Shariah. Muslim nations should strive to implement the Islamic Shariah in all matters. All laws, legislation, trade, politics and all other matters should be conducted according to the Shariah.

Many nations today rely in their so called "constitutions" on foreign systems of law. Many nations where the majority of inhabitants are Muslims derive their law from western systems of law, such as French or British law. This includes all matters including criminal law and even family law!

How can we continue to abandon the law of Allah (swt) and rely on the man made law?

Some evidence that Muslims must fully believe in and implement the Shariah is shown below:

"And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed, then they are Kafirun." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 44).

"And this (He commands): ‘Judge thou between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires but beware of them lest they beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you.’ And if they turn away be assured that for some of their crimes it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 49).

"Do they then seek after a judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? But who for a people whose faith is assured can give better judgment than Allah?" (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 50).

There is a lot more evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, but for the Muslim these three ayat should be sufficient to make them implement the Shariah in their life. The first ayah mentioned describes those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed as unbelievers. How can the Muslim not implement Shariah fully after hearing this verse?________________________________________________________________

Name of QuestionerJody - CanadaTitleSeparating Islam and PoliticsQuestionIs it true that there is no politics in Islam? Should politics be separated from religion?Date12/Mar/2003Name of Counsellor`Atiyyah SaqrTopicImamate & Political Systems

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we commend your keenness on getting your self well-acquainted with Islam and its teachings, which is the way Allah has chosen for the welfare of His servants.

Answering the question in point, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Religion is a divine system set for people’s benefit in this life and the Hereafter. The Islamic teachings, actually, enables man to attain happiness here, in this life, and later, in the Hereafter. On the other hand, politics is originally the technique of administration and management. So, it is commonly used as a term for a ruler's regime, with the different organizations and laws that regulate it.

Islam sheds light on all aspects of politics. The books of jurisprudence (Fiqh) contain chapters and sections on all such aspects, including the various textual evidences and personal judgments on them. There are also whole books written on politics, the oldest of these specialized books are Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah by al-Mawardi and As-Siyasah ash-Shar`iyyah fi ahwal ar-Ra`i war-Ra`iyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Islamic state was established on the basis of the Islamic system, which covers all aspects of life, religious and worldly. We also see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a conductor of the Divine Revelation, a legislator, a leader in prayer, a judge, and the commander of the army, and so were the Caliphs after him. With such integrity the Islamic nation was the greatest of all nations.

So, the notion of separating politics from religion and vice versa does not belong to Islam. It is taken from non-Muslim sources, i.e. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God’s”, as the famous quote goes." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question#: 470Question Date: 1/16/1997Topic : Politics, non-Muslims in Islamic StatesQuestion: I'm a political science major at georgia state university and I'm very interested in learning about islam and the middle east. Is it possible to be an islamist secularist? Also how would non-muslims be effected in an islamic state governed by islamic law. thank youAnswer: Dear K. Greetings. Regarding your questions, depending what you mean by Islamist secularist. If you mean that a non-Muslim becomes an expert about Islam but still believes in the secular approach on her own, then the answer is yes, it is possible. If you mean that it is a Muslim person who believes in secularism, then it is not possible, because Islam is a complete system. It doesn't separate State and Religion. The purpose of the an Islamic State is to establish and apply God's Legislation on earth, and the purpose of a Muslim, is to implement such a system. Therefore, a Muslim cannot believe in one part of the religion and disregard the other responsibility. Regarding the other portion of your question, non-Muslims have the choice of either reverting to Islam or staying on their own religion. (We use reverting not converting because Muslims believe that a human being by instinct, is born as a believer in one God, and it is his/her parents or society that changes the natural aspiration and tendency in him/her.) To continue the answer, if the non-Muslims choose not to revert to Islam, then they have to pay a certain tax, called in Arabic the Jizya, for protection, but they are at the same time exempt from other taxes and duties that Muslim have to pay, like the Zakat tax. In addition, they exempt from serving in the army. There are many other regulations, and if you need to know about a specific topic, please don't hesitate to write us back. Thank you for asking, and we hope to be able to serve you more efficiently in the future.

From Russia With Terror By Jamie GlazovFrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2004

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service. In 1987 he published Red Horizons (Regnery Gateway), reprinted in 24 countries. In 1999 Mr. Pacepa authored The Black Book of the Securitate, reportedly an all time bestseller in Romania. He is now finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.

Frontpage Magazine: Welcome to Frontpage Interview, Mr. Pacepa. Let’s begin. As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take direct orders from the Soviet KGB, you are obviously armed with a wealth of information. You have written about how the Soviets armed Hussein with WMDs, and also taught him how to eliminate any trace of them. Can you talk a bit about this and tell us its connection to the “missing WMDs” in Iraq today?

Pacepa: Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam’s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find “more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes” containing documentation “dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.” He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made “Sãrindar” plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a “spontaneous administration of tribal justice.” Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.

FP: So was any Sãrindar plan activated?Pacepa: Certainly. The minimal version of the Sãrindar plan I made for Libya’s Gaddafi. Soon after I was granted political asylum in the US, Gaddafi staged a fire at the secret chemical weapons facility I knew about (the cellar underneath the Rabta chemical complex). To be sure the CIA satellites would notice that fire and cross that target off its list, he created a huge cloud of black smoke by burning truckloads of tires and painting scorch marks on the facility. That was written in the Sãrindar plan. To be on the safe side, Gaddafi also built a second production facility, this time placed some 100 feet underground in the hollowed-out Tarhunah Mountain, south of Tripoli. That was not in the Sãrindar plan.FP: It is undeniable, therefore, that Saddam had WMDs, right?

Pacepa: In the early 1970s, the Kremlin established a “socialist division of labor” for persuading the governments of Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the US. KGB chairman Yury Andropov (who would later become the leader of the Soviet Union), told me that either of those two countries could inflict more damage on the Americans than could the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group and all other terrorist organizations taken together. The governments of those Arab countries, Andropov explained, not only had inexhaustible financial resources (read: oil), but they also had huge intelligence services that were being run by “our razvedka advisers” and could extend their tentacles to every corner of the earth. There was one major danger, though: by raising terrorism to the state level we risked American reprisal. Washington would never dispatch its airplanes and rockets to exterminate the Baader-Meinhof, but it might well deploy them to destroy a terrorist state. We therefore were also tasked to provide those countries secretly with weapons of mass destruction, because Andropov concluded that the Yankees would never attack a country that could retaliate with such deadly weapons.

Libya was Romania’s main client in that socialist division of labor, because of Ceausescu’s close association with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow kept Iraq. Andropov told me that, if our Iraq and Libyan experiment proved successful, the same strategy would be extended to Syria. Recently, Libya’s Gaddafi admitted to having WMD, and the CIA inspectors found them. Why should we believe that the almighty Soviet Union, which had proliferated WMD all over the world, was not able to do the same thing in Iraq? Every piece of armament Iraq had came from the former Soviet Union—from the Katyusha launchers to the T72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes. In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq. That was not for grain or beans—Russia has to import them from elsewhere.

FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime.

Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later influence operations—aimed at making the West consider Arafat a moderate—was given the codename “Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in Moscow—and Bucharest—the chairman of the Executive Committee became the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to all East European parliaments after World War II.

Based on another “socialist division of labor,” the Romanian espionage service (DIE) was responsible for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything else came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a “comradely help.” During those years, two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in Beirut every week, and were unloaded by Arafat’s men.

FP: You have discussed your personal knowledge of how Arafat was created and cultivated by the KGB and how the Soviets actually designed him to be the future leader of the PLO. Illuminate this picture for us please.Pacepa: “Tovarishch Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar,” was built into a Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. In that war Israel humiliated two of the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet, publicly proposed the appointment.Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism.FP: Why has the American and Israeli leadership been deceived so long about Arafat’s criminal and terrorist activities?Pacepa: Because Arafat is a master of deceit—and I unfortunately contributed to that. In March 1978, for instance, I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US president Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Therefore, he told the Romanian dictator that conditions were ripe for introducing Arafat into the White House. Moscow gave Ceausescu the job because by 1978 my boss had become Washington’s most favored tyrant. “The only thing people in the West care about is our leaders,” the KGB chairman said, when he enrolled me in the effort of making Arafat popular in Washington. “The more they come to love them, the better they will like us.”

“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. “We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only something for a future generation. That all governments, even Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements, and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.

My former boss was able to persuade Arafat into tricking President Carter only by resorting to dialectical materialism, for both were fanatical Stalinists who knew their Marxism by heart. Ceausescu sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only realistic weapon,” but he also told his guest that, if he would transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending, over and over,” my boss emphasized.

Ceausescu pointed out that political influence, like dialectical materialism, was built upon the same basic tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation. Both work like cocaine, let’s say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you into an addict, a different man. That’s the qualitative transformation. And in the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name.

In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he convinced President Jimmy Carter that he could persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile, if the United States would establish official relations with him. Thereupon, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader” who had “taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.”

Three months later I was granted political asylum by the United States, and Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. A quarter of a century later, however, Arafat remains in place as the PLO chairman and seems to still be on track with the Kremlin’s game of deception. In 1994, Arafat was granted the Nobel Peace Prize because he agreed to transform his terrorist organization into a kind of government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over, that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of the state of Israel and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism. At the end of the 1998-99 Palestinian school year, however, all one hundred and fifty new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equated Zionism with Nazism. Two years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists rose by 73% compared to the two year period preceding the agreement.

FP: There simply can’t be any kind of peace in the Middle East with Arafat at the helm. What advice would you give to American and Israeli diplomats now?

Pacepa: To expose Arafat’s lies and condemn his bloody terrorism, but to avoid being implicated in physical reprisals against him—that would certainly make him a hero with the Palestinians. I strongly suggest the Ceausescu solution. In November 1989, when he was loudly reelected president of Romania, Ceausescu was as popular there as Arafat is now with the Palestinians. A month later, however, Ceausescu was tried for genocide by his own people and executed by his own people. From one day to the next Ceausescu became the symbol of tyranny. Romania turned into a free country, and twelve years later it was invited to join NATO.

FP: Tell us a bit about what you think about the state of the KGB in Russia today. Some say it is experiencing a resurrection. Is this true?

Pacepa: It certainly is. In the last dozen years, Russia has been transformed for the better in unprecedented ways. Nevertheless, that country has a long way to go until it will tear down the legacy of Soviet Communism. As of June 2003, some 6,000 former KGB officers were reportedly holding important positions in Russia’s central and regional governments. Three months later, nearly half of the top governmental positions were also held by former KGB. It is like putting the old, supposedly defeated Gestapo in charge of rebuilding Germany.

Since the fall of Communism the Russians have been faced with an indigenous form of capitalism run by old Communist bureaucrats, speculators and ruthless mafiosi that has widened social inequities and created a decline in industrial production. Therefore, after a period of upheaval, the Russians have gradually—and perhaps thankfully—slipped back into their historical form of government, the traditional Russian samoderzhaviye (autocracy) traceable to the 14th century’s Ivan the Terrible, in which a feudal lord ruled the country with the help of his personal political police. Good or bad, the historically Russian political police may appear to most people in that country as their only defense against the rapacity of the new capitalists at home and the greediness of grasping foreign neighbors.

Russia will never return to Communism—too many Russians perished at the hands of that heresy. But it seems that Russia will not truly turn westward either, at least not under this generation. If history—including that of the last 14 years—is any guide, the Russians, who are now enjoying their regained nationalism, will struggle to rebuild a kind of an Old Russian Empire by inspiring themselves from old Russian traditions and by using old Russian ways and means.FP: So is Russia a friend or a foe of the United States in the present international environment?

Pacepa: After the Berlin Wall was torn down, I hurried over there to have a look around. The dreaded East German political police was abolished from one day to the next, and its archives were opened to the public. One year later, the Stasi’s outrageous activity was laid bare in a large, impressive museum of freedom. A member of the Berlin parliament told me that the Germans wanted to provide the world with the certitude that the past would never be repeated. To be on the safe side, the German government sold off all the Stasi’s buildings to private companies.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the new rulers in the Kremlin did not open the archives of the Soviet Union’s political police, but in 1992 they did create their own kind of KGB museum in Moscow, in a dreary gray building behind the Lubyanka. The upper floors remain KGB offices, but the rooms on the ground floor are used for conferences and as a club for retired KGB officers—complete with disco.

On September 11, 2002, numerous former KGB officers gathered at the KGB museum. They had not congregated in order to sympathize with us on the date of our national tragedy, but to celebrate the 125th birthday of Feliks Dzerzhinsky—the man who created one of the most criminal institutions in contemporary history. A few days later, Moscow’s mayor, Yury Lushkov, one of Russia’s most influential politicians, reversed his previous opposition and now said he wanted to restore Dzerzhinsky’s bronze statue to its former place of honor on Lubyanka Square. Just before that, the new Russian president ordered that the statue of Yury Andropov be reinstated at the Lubyanka, from where it had been removed after the KGB coup in 1991. Andropov is indeed the only other KGB officer to have been enthroned in the Kremlin, and it was therefore normal for Putin to pay homage to him. For all his life, Andropov indoctrinated his subordinates to believe that American Imperialism was the main enemy of their country. Now these subordinates are running Russia. It may take another generation until the visceral hatred for the US cultivated by Andropov disappears.

FP: How does Russia fit in the War on Terror? Isn’t there at least a common interest in fighting Islamic terrorism?

Pacepa: September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

In the late 1960s, a new element was added to the Soviet/PLO war against Israel and American imperial-Zionism: international terrorism. Before 1969 came to an end, the KGB's Thirteenth Department-known in our intelligence jargon as the Department for Wet Affairs, wet being a euphemism for bloody-invented airplane hijacking. The KGB constantly lectured at us that no one within the

American/Zionist sphere of influence should feel safe anymore. The hijacked airplane became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy-and eventually the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001.

During those years of intensive airplane hijackings, I became amazed at the almost identical pride both Arafat and KGB General Sakharovsky exhibited over their prowess as terrorists. “I invented the hijacking of [passenger] airplanes,” Arafat bragged to me in the early 1970s, when I first met him. A few months later I met with Sakharovsky at his Lubyanka office. He pointed to the red flags pinned onto a world map hanging on his wall. “Look at that,” he said. Each flag represented a plane that had been downed. “Airplane hijacking is my own invention,” he boasted.

Sakharovsky’s subordinates are now reigning in the Kremlin. Until they fully disclose their involvement in creating anti-American terrorism and condemn Arafat’s terrorism, there is no reason to believe they have changed.

FP: Mr. Pacepa. thank you. We are out of time. It was a great honor to speak with you. I hope you will return and join us again.

Pacepa: It was a great pleasure to be with you, and I would be delighted to return.

*

I welcome all of our readers to get in touch with me if they have a good idea/contact for a guest for Frontpage Interview. Email me at jglazov@rogers.com.

****Yes, this is from that right-wing paper from that right-wing part of Manhattan. ****

Letter From IsraelPalestine 101A Short Take on a Long Historyby Sylvana FoaJuly 31 - August 6, 2002

JAFFA—Have you heard the one about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat finally sitting down to negotiate? Sharon opened with a "biblical" tale."Before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. One day, miraculously, a stream appeared. They drank and then decided to bathe. When Moses came out of the water, he found all his clothes missing.

"If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed," Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels once said. What worked for Goebbels evidently is also working for Arafat.

The blatant lies and vicious propaganda emanating from the Arab world have gotten out of hand. Anti-Semitism is out of the closet. Jews are murdered in Canada, their graves are desecrated in Italy. It's time to sort through the spiteful drivel.

No, Charlie, despite what you read on a zillion Arab Web sites, Jews do not use the blood of Arab children to bake their holiday bread.

Yes, Harriet, the Jewish Temple did exist in Jerusalem. I know Arafat insists it didn't and his excavators are busy destroying all archaeological record of it. But next time you visit Rome, go check out the Forum and you'll find its story carved in the ancient stone of Titus's arch. Let's start at the beginning.

First, who really owns the land encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority? The answer is so well documented it could be the subject of future UN resolutions—the Canaanites. They established the Land of Canaan here around 2000 B.C., so they have first dibs. Unfortunately for them, there isn't a single Canaanite left on earth.

Abraham, the Father of the Jews and a figure revered by Islam, led a band of Hebrews from Mesopotamia and began the conquest of Canaan in 1741 B.C.—that's 3743 years ago. Those first Israelites were joined in about 1290 B.C. by the Jewish slaves led out of Egypt by Moses.

After many years and a lot of help from Joshua, the Israelites finally defeated the Canaanites and old King Saul united the country in 1100 B.C. King David added Jerusalem in 1000 B.C., and King Solomon built the First Temple around 956 B.C. The land was plagued by raiders like those guys dubbed the Philistines, "Sea Invaders," who came out of the Aegean and snatched a nice chunk of the coast. Remember Goliath? He was a Philistine and King David made mincemeat of him, but the Philistines were a nuisance for many years.

Big trouble loomed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians (nasty ancestors of the nasty Iraqis) invaded under King Nebuchadnezzar II. They sacked the lavish city Solomon had built in Jerusalem and tore down the First Temple. The Babylonians rounded up all the Jews they could catch and deported them to Babylonia as slaves. That "Babylonian Exile" lasted a mere 50 years and the Jews returned to build the Second Temple.

For the next 1000 years, everyone and his brother grabbed a piece of the territory—Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The Roman reign was particularly benevolent. They destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and killed an estimated 1.1 million disobedient Jews, including one named Jesus. The Romans also maliciously renamed the area Palaestina, after the Jews' old enemy, the Philistines. The Christian Byzantine Empire took over in 300 A.D. and held on for more than 300 years. During that era, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 A.D.

Muhammad's followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice—become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews. So, who is occupying whom??

The Arabs considered Palestine unimportant and ruled from Damascus and Baghdad. You could call them benign except for the massacres and the fact that they were uncomfortable with trees . . . so they cut them all down, turning the once fertile region into a more familiar desert.

With all the hoopla about Jerusalem, check out the Muslim holy book, the Koran. The Koran mentions Mecca and Medina countless times but never once speaks of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there are 811 references to Jerusalem in the Bible.

Christian Crusaders arrived from Europe in 1099 and ousted the Arabs. In subsequent years, the land switched back and forth between invaders, and in the turmoil Jews began filtering back from their scattered exile. Many came from Spain, whence they were expelled in 1492.

In 1516, the non-Arab Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and held sway until after World War I, when the British took over.

We really have no idea how many Jews and how many Arabs there were at the time—mainly because both groups hid from the Ottoman census takers to avoid taxes.

But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867.

In his travelogue, Innocents Abroad, Twain wrote, "One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

But the population was growing. More Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1880s, either fleeing oppression or following the Zionist dream. And Arabs from neighboring countries flocked to jobs created by Jewish immigrants.

Take a deep breath, because now the plot thickens.

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and promised "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People."

The British then turned around and gave over 77 percent of Palestine to the Arab Hashemites, for what later became Jordan. The remaining 23 percent, west of the River Jordan, was supposedly for the Jews.

But in 1947, the UN voted to partition that 23 percent of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Israelis accepted the plan and in 1948 proclaimed the establishment of their state. Neighboring Arab nations, however, rejected both the partition and the idea of a Jewish state and launched a massive invasion of Israel.

They were defeated, and at the end of the 1948 war Israel held all of Western Palestine except the West Bank, which was captured by Jordan, and Gaza, which was seized by Egypt.

In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel again defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, gaining control not only of Gaza and the West Bank, but also of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.

The big question is: Where were the calls for a Palestinian state during the 19 years Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza?

A 1978 peace accord signed with Egypt returned the Sinai to Cairo, but the Egyptians seemed relieved to leave Gaza with Israel. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan officially renounced all claims to the West Bank.

As far as Israelis were concerned, the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them.

But even after all the nauseating terror of the last 23 months, the majority of Israelis are willing to give Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza, and half of Jerusalem for their state. We just wonder if they are willing to let us keep ours.

Well, we seem to be drifting well afield here from "Islam in Australia" Forgive me this brief return to the subject of this thread

GM, Erik-- excellent exchange you guys have going here and one in which I would like to participate. Any chance of one or both of you re-posting it to a thread where it is more on topic and is more likely to be seen by those interested in these matters? If this is too much of a hassle, then carry on here.=-==========

Death Series movies urge children to martyr themselvesCensor board awarded series PG ratingFilm vilifies Jewish as 'army of pigs'

A PRO-TERROR hate film that urges children to martyr themselves in Islam's war on the West and calls Jews "pigs" has been rated PG by Australia's censors.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed's DVD box set, which also calls for the murder of non-believers, was initially seized by Federal anti-terror police. But the Office of Film and Literature Classification has ruled that The Death Series is suitable to be bought and watched by children. The shock decision has seen the nation's peak censorship body slammed as weak and out of touch by family groups and the Jewish community. It has also made a mockery of the Attorney-General's plans to bring in tough new laws that ban material which "advocates" terrorism. The PG decision comes as Australian-born Sheik Feiz, who is in exile in Lebanon, is still preaching to Australians by phone.

The films urge parents to make their children holy warriors and martyrs, and praises jihad as the pinnacle of Islam. The radical sheik makes snorting noises on the films as he vilifies Jews as the "army of pigs". He blames a lack of courage for martyrdom on the battlefield for the "humiliation" of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Guantanamo.

The censors' finding means children of any age can watch the films - but it is advised under-15s have a parent present.

The OFLC finding said the sheik's calls to "jihad" and "martyrdom" were ambiguous. And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying "behind me is a Jew, come kill him" were mitigated by the context.

The Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council said the PG rating proved the current censorship guidelines had dangerous shortcomings.

"In the Feiz Mohammed case, as well as others, there seems to be inadequate consideration to the dangers posed by the non-fiction advocacy of violence and bigotry, as opposed to its graphic depiction," AIJAC head Dr Colin Rubenstein said.

He said he hoped that a review of the laws would deal with the serious problem of incitement. The Australian Family Association said the Sheik Feiz decision was just the latest ruling by a "hardened" OFLC detached from community values.

Go ahead and copy and paste as best makes sense to you. Once you have done so, I will handle the deletions here. Erik, I look foward to seeing us continue the conversation over on "Islam the Religion".

John Lyons | October 29, 2007 AUSTRALIA faces a "London-type bombing" if relations between Muslims and the intelligence and police authorities do not improve, an influential Islamic youth leader has warned.

Fadi Rahman, who runs one of Sydney's biggest youth centres at Lidcombe in the city's west, said overseas Islamic elements were attempting to radicalise Muslim youth with their hardline ideologies.

But in a warning that will resonate with Australian authorities, Mr Rahman said Muslims did not trust ASIO or the Australian Federal Police and that the bungled terror case against Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef had worsened the situation. "The biggest problem ASIO and the federal police have is that no one in the Islamic community trusts them enough to give them a heads-up about anything," Mr Rahman told The Australian.

"Look at the Haneef thing - why would we trust these guys when all you see is one fumble after another? People are afraid."

Dr Haneef, an Indian national, was detained in July on suspicion of having played a role in the foiled terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, but the case fell apart after a series of prosecution mistakes.

Mr Rahman said a battle for the hearts and minds of young Muslims was under way in Australia between influences from overseas wanting to radicalise youths and more moderate influences in Australia.

Mr Rahman said he believed he had been the target of a recruitment attempt but when he responded "defensively" those talking to him said they had merely been joking.

Asked about the anatomy of a recruitment, he said: "Most of the time they start at the local mosque in small groups - they move quickly into the garage, then people's homes. You get sucked in."

He said the typical recruiter was in their 40s or 50s, "from overseas, well-educated and tapping into young people's frustrations and anger".

"I think we are very similar to London," he said. "There are these individuals from overseas who are basically in their mid-life who have these ideologies and because of the animosity they have experienced in their own countries have deep hatred of the Western world. It's very easy to tap into the mind of someone who has a low education level, unemployment and who has basically given up on life.

"The right ingredients are there. We need to do something or what happened in London, a London-type bombing, will happen here."

The "something" includes programs to give opportunities to Muslim youth and a "less hostile" attitude by the federal Government. Mr Rahman said the Government was spending too much on campaigns directed at people who did not know what was going on - such as the Be Alert, Not Alarmed campaign - but not enough in communities such as southwestern Sydney, where about 250,000 Muslims live. "It's not like it will be John Smith on the north shore of Sydney who will have information, it will be Mohammed or Ahmed out here," he says.

Mr Rahman said he and Toufic Mallah, the man he brought into the youth centre to stress moderation, preached non-violence.

About 50 of the youths at the centre, which has about 460 members aged 10 to 35, are former criminals who have done time in jail. Mr Rahman said they could go "either way".

At the Independent Centre of Research Australia, he runs anger-management programs and has opened a prayer room run by Sheik Mallah. Sheik Mallah said the second chapter of the Koran stressed that "we have made a moderate nation".

He says non-Muslim Australians should approach their local sheiks if there was anything they did not understand or like about their local Muslim communities. "Come and speak to us," he said.

Mr Rahman brokered a deal with IBM last week under which the computer company will mentor 10 youths from the centre and offer three traineeships.

Mr Rahman said this sort of support gave the young people and their families and friends hope. In the aftermath of the Cronulla race riots in Sydney in 2005 there was progress between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, but since then "things have taken a nasty turn".

"The blame game" of all Muslims being blamed for terrorism "will only put people offside", he said.

"When the **** hits the fan we will all be covered with it. It's just a matter of time before someone says I've had enough. Unless something is done and attitudes change something will happen.

"We haven't learnt our lesson post-September 11, the Bali bombings, the Cronulla riots and the London bombings. There's deep-seated hatred on both sides. When young Muslims go into other areas they go in with force.

"I cop it from both ends - who do you please? Do you please your own community or the wider community? A lot of them are saying don't waste your time, you will never get anywhere with these people."

Mr Rahman said one of the biggest problems in the Lebanese community was that many of his generation, although they loved their parents, felt caught between two worlds.

MUSLIM university students want lectures to be rescheduled to fit in with prayer timetables and separate male and female eating and recreational areas established on Australian campuses.

International Muslim students, predominantly from Saudi Arabia, have asked universities in Melbourne to change class times so they can attend congregational prayers. They also want a female-only area for Muslim students to eat and relax.

But at least one institution has rejected their demands, arguing that the university is secular and it does not want to set a precedent for requests granted in the name of religious beliefs.

La Trobe University International chief officer John Molony said several students had approached the Bundoora institution about rearranging class times to fit in with daily prayers.

Mr Molony said the university was attempting to "meet the needs" of an increasing number of Muslim international students, including doubling the size of the prayer room on campus.

La Trobe University International College director Martin Van Run said that although it was involved in discussions with the Muslim students who had made the requests, the university was not planning to change any timetables.

"That would seriously inconvenience other people at the college and it is not institutionally viable," he told The Australian. "We are a secular institution ... and we need to have a structured timetable."

Mr Van Run said that Saudi students were fully aware that the university was secular before coming to study there. "They know well in advance the class times," he said.

A spokesman for RMIT University would neither confirm nor deny reports that Muslim students had requested timetable changes.

One university source told The Australian that the requests by Muslim international students for timetable changes included a petition.

"Some of the students would prefer that lecture times were organised so it would be easy for them to attend prayers," he said. "But it wouldn't be a good precedent to set."

Islamic leaders yesterday backed the push by Muslim students to have their lectures arranged to accommodate prayer sessions, but said such a move would be essential only for congregational Friday prayers.

Female Muslim leader Aziza Abdel-Halim said yesterday it was a religious duty for those who followed Islam to preach with their fellow believers on Fridays.

But the former senior member of John Howard's Muslim reference board said there was nothing in Islam that indicated men and women be segregated when it came to educational activities.

"There's nothing in Islam that says there should be complete segregation, especially in educational institutions," said Sister Abdel-Halim.

She said afternoon prayers for Muslims - Zhohor, at 1.10pm, and Asr, at 4.50pm - could be performed until 10 minutes before the following daily prayer, so it was more appropriate to alter prayer times than lecture schedules.

"It's reasonable to ask for the lectures to be shifted around on Friday," Sister Abdel-Halim said. "But if it's going to cause havoc with the timetable, I don't think it's really feasible to ask forevery single prayer to be catered for."

There are exemptions for the daily prayers for devout muslims in non-muslim lands, or are unable to pray due to work or other things (like jihad). Much like muslim taxi drivers refusing to drive guide dogs or people in possession of alcohol, this is forcing sharia law on the western world incrementally. Islam is to dominate and not be dominated, and they will push that agenda as long as we'll let them.

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.

"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.

Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.

"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.

"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."

Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.

The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.

By ERIC BELLMAN JAKARTA—One of Indonesia's pop stars was sentenced to prison Monday for making sex tapes that triggered a national outcry and a public debate about morals when they were leaked onto the Internet last year.

One of Indonesia's pop stars is sentenced to prison for making sex tapes that triggered a national outcry and a public debate about morals when they were leaked on the Internet last year.

The 29-year-old Nazril Irham—lead singer of a popular band called Peterpan and known to his fans and friends by the nickname "Ariel"—was sentenced to 3½ years in jail and fined $28,000 for two blurry, homemade sex videos seen by Internet users across Indonesia, the world's most-populous Muslim-majority nation. One video shows him and his current girlfriend, a well-known actress. The other shows him with a former girlfriend, also an actress.

A court in Bandung, the capital of West Java, where Mr. Irham resides, said the trial proved it was Mr. Irham in the videos. It rejected the argument that the videos had been stolen and released without Mr. Irham's permission, saying he hadn't done enough to stop their distribution—violating the strict anti-pornography law that went into effect three years ago.

A lawyer for Mr. Irham said he would appeal the ruling, local media reported.

The case became a sensation in Indonesia and underscored the continuing tension between its many moderate Muslim residents and an influential core of conservative residents who feel the country is becoming too secular, especially with the spread of the Internet.Hundreds of Islamic hard-liners protested near the court on Monday, saying the sentence wasn't harsh enough. Other Indonesians, though, including human-rights activists, called the sentence heavy-handed and said it showed how courts can be bullied by a radical minority.

"The whole legal process began with public pressure in the name of religion and morality," said Hendardi, the chairman of the Setara Institute, a human-rights organization in Jakarta. "The legal system bowed to public pressure, even though the public opinion it was responding to does not really represent the majority" of Indonesians, said Mr. Hendardi, who like many Indonesians uses only one name.

While Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country, the Southeast Asian nation of 240 million has long been seen as moderate and largely secular. A small but vocal—and sometimes violent—minority has at times sought to impose its will, serving as a sort of moral police for the country.

Islamist terrorists, meanwhile, have launched attacks on Western targets, including the popular beach resort of Bali and five-star hotels in the capital city of Jakarta.

The frequent public demonstrations of some conservative Muslims against what they see as Western influences in Indonesia, and their support of new laws—such as the pornography prohibition and various local government initiatives to restrict gambling, the use of alcohol and other activities frowned upon by more religious residents—have brought them occasional victories with local governments and in courts, parliament and other public offices.

Indonesia's Communications and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring, a member of the country's Islamic PKS party, threatened to shut down Indonesia's BlackBerry services if the Canadian company behind the telephone, email and instant-messaging device, Research In Motion Ltd., failed to block pornographic sites. Research In Motion agreed to oblige earlier this month.In 2010, the editor in chief of Playboy Indonesia started a two-year prison term for publishing pictures of scantily clad women.

Many analysts have argued that the influence of conservative Islamic groups has waned in recent years under the leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who has emphasized the country's emergence as a rising economic power and its desire to attract more foreign investment. But the continued debates over whether to limit some Internet searches and otherwise restrict behavior linked to looser morals indicates that conservative factions are still powerful, they say.

I know nothing of Myanmar, but this is POTH, so this may or may not be fairly reported; further reading may be a good idea.

MANDALAY, Myanmar — When hundreds of Buddhist men carrying clubs and swords marauded through the streets of this old royal capital earlier this month, the owner of a Muslim-Chinese restaurant took down the Koranic scriptures and the image of Mecca hanging above the cashier and removed the Arabic writing from signs on the street.

“I don’t know when I will put them back up, maybe never,” said Jian Hao Yang, whose restaurant is a short walk from the mosque where Chinese Muslims have worshiped for close to a century and a half.

Mandalay, the city that evokes the romance of Kipling for Westerners, has been a center of Buddhist learning since its founding in the 19th century by a broad-minded Burmese Buddhist king. It has also been a conglomeration of complexions, religions and ethnicities, a trading post and halfway point between the great civilizations of China

But the historical tolerance shown by bygone Buddhist rulers is unraveling in Mandalay, the country’s second largest city, as antipathy between Buddhists and Muslims continues to spread across Myanmar, fomented by a radical Buddhist movement that is partly based here.

The riots in Mandalay, which left two people dead and prompted a nighttime curfew, brought religious hatred to the doorstep of one of the country’s best assimilated minorities, Chinese Muslims known here as the Panthay.

The Panthay are distinct from the broader Muslim population, which is in large part made up of Indian Muslims. But in a measure of how ubiquitous antipathy toward Muslims has become today, the Panthay, after decades of lives interwoven into Burmese and Buddhist society, now fear for their safety.

“We are now among the hated,” said U Maung Maung Lay, the great-grandson of a Panthay leader who moved here from southern China in the 1850s.

For a week after the riots, the board of trustees of the Panthay mosque, among them jade merchants, a pediatric surgeon and timber barons, suspended the festivities that normally accompany the breaking of the fast during Ramadan. They also turned down the volume of the loudspeakers announcing the call to prayer.

The mosque has since resumed the ceremonial breaking of the fast, but the celebration is muted and more sparsely attended than in years past.

“We are now living a lower profile,” said U Win Aung, one of the trustees of the mosque. “It’s for our own good.”

The Panthay mosque, with thick, fading ocher walls and a minaret built from Burmese hardwood, was erected in the 1860s with the blessings of a great Burmese king, Mindon, who although a devoted patron of Buddhism, welcomed the Muslim community and provided the land where the mosque remains.

Mandalay today is a sprawling city dotted with Buddhist pagodas, churches and mosques. But it is also home to the radical teachings of Ashin Wirathu, a monk who has preached hatred toward Muslims and is the spiritual leader of a movement to boycott Muslim businesses.

When bands of young Buddhists prowled the streets carrying clubs and shouting anti-Muslim slogans on the night of July 1, Mr. Maung Maung Lay, the descendant of the Panthay leader, fled to a hotel with his family.Continue reading the main story

He advised Panthay women to remove head coverings and told Muslim friends with beards to shave.

“I told them: ‘Shave it off. It endangers you. The beard is not important. What is important is how you practice your religion.’ ”

Violence against Muslims in Myanmar began two years ago along the border with Bangladesh, as a dispute between Buddhists and the million-strong community of Muslims known as Rohingya.

Many Rohingya have lived in the country for several generations but are considered illegal immigrants by the Burmese government, denied citizenship, and seen as a demographic threat by Buddhists, who make up the vast majority of the country’s population of about 60 million.

Anti-Muslim riots have spread to towns and villages across Myanmar as old resentments toward Muslim immigrants that were buried during five decades of military rule resurfaced amid the new freedoms of the country’s budding democracy.

The riots in Mandalay signaled a new level of threat in the religious strife: for the first time a big metropolis was at risk.

“No one really knows how the violence could escalate and who could be the next target,” said Thant Myint-U, one of the country’s leading historians. “There’s deep-seated prejudice against many minority communities, extremely high unemployment, rampant rumor mongering and a lot of general anxiety about the future. It’s an environment that’s very easy for anyone to exploit.”

U Thein Win Aung, the imam of a mosque on the outskirts of Mandalay, says the city “is like a pile of wood ready to burn.”

“It will take just one spark,” said Mr. Thein Win Aung, who is active in interfaith groups that are trying to stave off conflicts in the city.

The violence in Mandalay, which was set off by unconfirmed reports on Facebook of a rape of a Buddhist woman by two Muslim men, could have been much worse had it not been for the intervention of a Buddhist monk and former political prisoner, Mr. Thein Win Aung and others say.

The monk, Galonni Sayadaw, approached the roving bands of young Buddhist men and urged them to return to their homes. The monk also publicly exhorted the chief of police, who as in previous bouts of religious unrest did not immediately intervene, to disperse the crowds.

At the end of two nights of violence, the damage to property was not as severe as in some other cities racked by religious violence: a number of cars in Indian Muslim neighborhoods had been burned and mosques had been attacked with stones but were not seriously damaged. But the two men killed — a Buddhist, U Tun Tun, and a Muslim, U Soe Min — were brutally murdered. The body of the Muslim man was identifiable by his wife only by a distinctive blemish on one of his toes.

In an interview, Galonni, the monk, expressed the widely held view that the violence was backed by forces allied with conservative factions of the government that are trying to slow the country’s moves toward democracy ahead of landmark elections next year. “As we come closer to elections there will be more conflict,” he said.Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

David Scott Mathieson, an analyst with Human Rights Watch in Myanmar, wrote after the Mandalay riots that it appeared that the “violence was not just an organic eruption of communal resentment” and noted that it may have been linked to a planned visit to Mandalay on Sunday by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader. Burmese analysts have speculated that the violence might be associated with efforts to slow her ascension in politics and ultimately derail her attempts to become president.

Mr. Thein Win Aung, the imam, says religious strife is also being aggravated by what he describes as radical Muslims trained in India and the Middle East, who are preaching separation from Buddhist society.

Moderates in the city, both Muslims and Buddhists, are resigned to the reality that its live-and-let-live ethos, the greater tolerance of years past, is gone for now.

The restaurant owner, Mr. Yang, says that as tensions have risen over the last two years, he hides his religion from all but the closest of his Burmese friends. “If they serve pork, I say, ‘No, I can’t eat it — I’m allergic.’ ”

Mr. Yang, who also has a Burmese name and whose family has been in Myanmar for several generations, says he feels most comfortable within the Panthay community, which is feeling increasingly ostracized by the Burmese.

“We feel like foreigners,” he said, “and they treat us like immigrants.”